A sentencing judge may reject uncontradicted expert evidence of a causal connection between cognitive impairment and offending where the objective circumstances of the offending — including deliberate isolation of victims, threats to secure silence, and acknowledgment of wrongdoing — are inconsistent with the expert's opinion. However, even where no causal link is established, the 'common humanity' basis may still warrant moderation of general deterrence for an intellectually impaired offender. The quality and extent of an intellectually impaired offender's knowledge of wrongdoing may be qualitatively different from that of a person of ordinary intelligence, and this distinction should be considered in assessing moral culpability.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 18 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 18 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.